AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

agistrates refer tack) case upward

15th April 1999, Page 8
15th April 1999
Page 8
Page 8, 15th April 1999 — agistrates refer tack) case upward
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

by Mike Jewell A North Wales owner-driver who admitted using an interrupter switch to falsify tachograph records has been committed to a Crown Court for sentencing because Chester magistrates do not consider that their powers of punishment are sufficient.

Edward John Williams, of Rhuddlan, pleaded guilty to 25 offences of falsification between 8 January and 12 June 1998. The magistrates could have fined him a maximum of 2.5,000 per offence—a total of £125,000. But a Crown Court has the power to impose up to two years' imprisonment with unlimited fines.

Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate. Albert Oldfield said that Williams' 32-tonne rigid tipper was stopped in a check at Dunkirk. When a traffic examiner compared the delivery note with the tachograph chart he saw that the load had been collected at a time when the chart indicated the truck was at rest.

When the vehicle's tachograph was examined it was found that extra wiring had been fitted behind the bulkhead so it could be de-activated. Oldfield said it was a very sophisticated installation which also disabled the speed limiter, with all the inherent dangers that gave rise to. Irwin Barnforth, defending, said that Williams had gained nothing from the offences as he was subsequently told by the traffic examiner that the journeys could in fact have been made legally.

But Oldfield pointed out that when interviewed Williams had said he was using the tachograph switch because he could not get the work done and make the lorry pay.


comments powered by Disqus